Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I recognize Stephanie Gruba, a legislative aide in my Washington, DC, office, for the years of hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Stephanie is a native of Milbank, SD, and is a graduate from the University of South Dakota. Upon graduation from USD, Stephanie moved from Vermillion, SD, to Washington, DC, to become a member of my office staff. In her almost 3 years on my staff, Stephanie has served as a staff assistant, legislative correspondent, and as a legislative aide. Stephanie has worked tirelessly for my South Dakota constituents and as a loyal member of ``Team Thune.''

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Stephanie for her dedicated service in the Senate and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Sarah Johnson, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Sarah is a graduate of Custer High School in Custer, SD. Currently, she is attending South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where she is majoring in mining engineering. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sarah for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Megan Assman, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Megan is a graduate of Winner High School in Winner, SD. Currently, she is attending South Dakota State University, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Megan for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Jennessa Scholl, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Jennessa is a graduate of Spearfish High School in Spearfish, SD. Currently, she is also a graduate of Black Hills State University, where she majored in mass communications. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jennessa for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Adam Wek, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Adam is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending South Dakota State University, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Adam for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Mr. David Jensen, a native of Lemmon, SD, for being awarded the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Defense Medal for Valor. The Medal for Valor is the highest civilian award for valor, and David received this honor for his actions while deployed in Afghanistan on September 10, 2012. He was recognized for his bravery in an awards ceremony at the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes on April 14, 2014.

David served in the 75th Ranger Regiment and the U.S. Army Special Operations Command before he was honorably discharged. He is now a special operations task force advisor at Fort Bragg, NC, working for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

David has also worked as a contractor for Wexford Group Inc., serving with the U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group. In 2012, David was deployed to Afghanistan as an operational adviser for the Asymmetric Warfare Group alongside Company C, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. On September 10, 2012, David and Company C were set to fly out of Bagram Airfield with Afghan National Security Forces to conduct a partnered air assault operation in Parwan Province. During preflight operations, however, one of the CH-47 Chinook helicopters was struck by an enemy rocket, igniting the fuel tanks of the aircraft. Despite the high risk of danger and personal harm, David immediately began evacuating wounded soldiers from the burning aircraft, making several trips before the flames overcame the entire aircraft. After evacuating four wounded soldiers from the wreckage, David promptly began administering medical attention to the injured. A humble man, David has said that he merely reacted, doing what needed to be done.

David Jensen is most deserving of the Medal for Valor for his exemplary bravery in the face of danger and putting the concerns of others before his own. His selfless acts saved the lives of his

colleagues, and our Nation will always be grateful for his dedicated service. As thankful citizens, we must never take for granted the courage of heroes like David who selflessly answer the call to duty.

I come to the floor to discuss the proposed minimum wage hike and the jobs it will cost Americans.

With more than 10 million Americans unemployed, the last thing this body should be doing is considering legislation that would jeopardize jobs. Yet this week we are back in session with another one of the Democrats' election-year gimmicks: a 40-percent minimum wage hike that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in a loss of up to 1 million jobs in this country.

Minimum wage hikes are a favorite Democratic proposal when economic times are tough and election-year prospects are dim. Hiking wages sounds good, after all, and Democrats figure it is a sure-fire way to appeal to Americans. But the truth is that when the consequences of a minimum wage hike are explained to them, Americans don't want it. Why is that? Because Americans want jobs. A minimum wage hike during such a weak economic recovery wouldn't result in job gains; it would result in job losses. It is simple: When you make something more expensive, people can afford less of it. When you drive up the cost of hiring workers, employers can't afford to hire as many of them, especially when you consider that many of those who employ minimum wage workers are small business owners.

Democrats are proposing a 40-percent hike in an economy in which unemployment is already high and job growth is already weak--in other words, a massive minimum wage hike under the worst possible conditions.

It should surprise no one that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated this hike could cost up to 1 million jobs. Who would be hurt by most by these lost jobs? Women, for one. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 57 percent of the roughly half a million jobs that would be lost by the end of 2016 thanks to this bill would be jobs that are held by women. Young people would also be hit particularly hard. Our economy's overall unemployment rate is not good, but the unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds is even worse--more than twice the national average. The unemployment rate for African Americans between 16 and 24 is still worse than that--a staggering 23.6 percent, almost four times the national average.

Duquesne University economist Antony Davies estimates that the Democrats' proposed minimum wage increase would hike unemployment for those under 25 years old without a high school diploma by 7 to 10 percent. If you are somebody who really needs a job--people under 25 years old without a diploma--the unemployment rate, which is already staggeringly high, could go up by 7 to 10 percent according to a Duquesne University economist.

Finally, the Democrats' proposed minimum wage hike would harm the lowest income and lowest skilled workers--in other words, the very people it is supposed to help. When businesses are faced with the reality of higher employment costs from a minimum wage hike, who are they going to let go? Low skilled workers, the same workers who are most likely to be making the minimum wage.

In a March 2014 survey of businesses currently employing minimum wage workers, 38 percent reported they would have to let some employees go to cover the cost of the minimum wage hike, while 54 percent reported they would reduce their hiring.

In South Dakota small business owners told me the same thing at a recent roundtable I held in my State. Multiple Main Street business owners told me they would stop hiring younger, less experienced workers and/or reduce the hours of their current employees. Others spoke of the devastating impact the

cost increases would have on their businesses. One gentleman who employs 30 workers at a Dairy Queen in South Dakota told me that a $3 increase in the minimum wage would cost his business an additional $100,000 per year. That is a huge amount for a small business in a rural area of South Dakota. To deal with these costs, this owner, like so many other small business owners around the country, is going to be forced to hike prices on the products he offers, and that will affect individuals and families in South Dakota and across the country.

Middle-class families have already seen their incomes fall by nearly $3,500 on this President's watch. The Congressional Budget Office makes clear that a minimum wage hike will mean their purchasing power will be even further reduced and eroded.

The evidence is clear: Minimum wage hikes cost jobs. When informed that they cost jobs, the strong majority of Americans reject these hikes, but unfortunately Democrats have a habit of ignoring both the evidence and the American people.

Take ObamaCare. Democrats jammed the bill through Congress on a party-line vote over the objections of the American people and despite plenty of evidence to suggest that ObamaCare wouldn't work. But, committed to their liberal fantasy of successful government-run health care, they ignored all the evidence to the contrary and forced the bill through. The American people are suffering as a result--canceled health care plans, lost doctors and hospitals, higher prices, fewer choices, and reduced access to medications. The list goes on and on.

Last week the fifth annual U.S. Bank Small Business Survey reported that businesses now rank health care as their No. 1 concern. More than 60 percent of them, quoting from the survey, ``now say the long-term impact of the Affordable Care Act will be negative on their business.''

Another article over the weekend reported that ``health insurers are preparing to raise rates next year for plans issued under the Affordable Care Act.''

Still another article from The Hill newspaper on Saturday stated that Democrats in competitive elections generally regard ObamaCare as a four-letter word, with many of their campaign Web sites omitting any reference to the law.

Democrats know ObamaCare has failed, but instead of trying to replace the law, they are just trying to distract with more bad policies that make it even harder to create jobs in this country.

American families are hurting. They need jobs--steady, good-paying jobs. Yet Democrats are ignoring this priority in favor of liberal pet projects that pander to their political base.

There is a clear contrast developing in the Senate: Democrats are offering distractions and Republicans are offering proposals that would spur job creation, increase opportunity, and help middle-class families, proposals such as Senator Hoeven's bill to force approval of the Keystone Pipeline and the 42,000 jobs the President's own State Department says it would support.

There is Senator Collins' proposal to amend the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek provision that is causing employers to cut hours.

We have the proposal from Senators Hatch, Toomey, and Coats to repeal ObamaCare's tax on lifesaving medical devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps--a tax that has already negatively affected tens of thousands of jobs in this industry and stands ready to damage many more.

Then there is Senator Portman's bill to require executive branch agencies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of new regulations so that fewer burdensome, job-killing regulations emerge from the administration.

There are bills from Senator Lee, Senator McConnell, and Senator Ayotte to give working parents more flexibility in the workplace so that they can make it to more soccer games and more dance recitals while maintaining steady jobs.

Senator Rubio has a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow employers to give raises to deserving employees.

Then there is my own to help long-term unemployed workers by providing them with a one-time low-interest loan of up to $10,000 to start a new job or to relocate to a State or metropolitan area with lower unemployment.

Those are the issues on which we should be focused. I hope we will start--and start creating jobs and opportunities for the American people.

Let me just say to my colleague from North Dakota that we would like to have more North Dakota energy in South Dakota, of course, and have the direct benefit of that, but we focus in our State on jobs, and that is what this is all about--jobs, jobs, jobs.

The President's own State Department says that this project would support 42,000 jobs--16,100 direct jobs including construction, and another 26,000 jobs that would be from indirect spending. That is not us. That is not the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Missouri on this side saying it would create jobs. That is the President's own State Department saying it would create jobs and $2 billion in earnings--a $3.4 billion contribution to the U.S. economy. When you think about the States that are impacted--the State of North Dakota directly and my State of South Dakota would be traversed by the pipeline--we have a lot of local and State governments that would benefit from this.

They say in the first year of operations it would generate $55.6 million of tax revenue, $17.9 million in my State of South Dakota. When you talk about what that can do in terms of infrastructure, what it can do in terms of providing revenue to build schools, public services, those sorts of things, it takes the pressure off the local property tax owners, area ranchers, homeowners, and businesses. That is another impact.

I would also say to my colleagues on the floor that it would strengthen our energy security. Some 830,000 barrels a day would come through that pipeline. That is half of what we import from the Middle East and about the total of what we import on a daily basis from Venezuela. So if you look at how much we can ship from that pipeline and how much that lessens the dependence we have on areas of the world that are much less favorable to the United States than is our neighbor of Canada, that is a very real consideration in this debate.

Finally, I would say to my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota-- and I thank him for his leadership on this issue--that the time to act is now. This has been studied and scrutinized and reviewed more than any project in history--8\1/2\ years, 2,048 days as of Tuesday, today, April 29. Five environmental reviews all concluded the pipeline would not have a significant impact on the environment. Just when you thought the process couldn't be dragged out any longer, this administration once again decided to block construction of this project and delay the national interest determination process.

Sean McGarvey, President of North America's Building Trades Union, called this latest move:

. . . a cold, hard slap in the face for hard working

Americans who are literally waiting for President Obama's

approval and the tens of thousands of jobs it will generate.

That comes from a labor union leader in this country. The unions want this, businesses in this country want it, and the American people want it by overwhelming margins. The only people who don't want it are some of the President's political supporters who, as the Senator from Alabama has pointed out, are extending hundreds, hundreds of millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, $400 million, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out. That is what is holding this up.

It is an offense to the American people to have a project like this that can do so much in terms of job creation and lessening our dependence upon foreign sources of energy and helping millions of Americans who are looking for work and simply being held up by the President of the United States. I hope the Senate Democrats and Republicans would come together to pass legislation that supports this pipeline's being built, whether the President agrees to it or not.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. President, today I recognize Commander Kathy Felger, a congressional affairs fellow for the U.S. Coast Guard on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and other Members of the Committee over the past 2 years.

A native Hoosier, Commander Felger graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1997. Since that time she has held various positions in the Coast Guard, most of them at sea as a ship driver. She will next serve as commanding officer of Thetis, a Famous class cutter, based out of Key West, FL with the primary missions of law enforcement, search and rescue, homeland security, and national defense.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Commander Felger for all of the fine work she has done and for her continued service to our Nation. I wish her continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, 2 weeks ago the New York Times published an article on the congressional Democrats' plan for the rest of the year. It boiled down to one thing: Campaigning. That is right; 8 months out from the election, Democrats in Congress have given up on legislating. Instead, they are going to spend the next 8 months focused on show votes, which will--and I quote from the story--``be timed to coincide with campaign-style trips by President Obama.''

While these votes will focus on ``pocketbook issues'' Democrats hope will appeal to voters, the votes are not designed to actually accomplish anything. The New York Times goes on to say:

Democrats concede that making new laws is not really the

point. Rather, they are trying to force Republicans to vote

against them.

The article goes on to say:

Privately, White House officials say they have no intention

of searching for any grand bargain with Republicans on any of

these issues. ``The point isn't to compromise,'' a senior

White House official said.

So that is where we are. The economy is stagnant, unemployment is hovering at recession-level highs, 10 million Americans are unemployed--nearly 4 million of them for 6 months or longer--household income has fallen, health care costs are soaring, and Democrats have decided to give up doing anything about it so they can get reelected in November.

This political strategy was front and center last week when Democrats blocked all Republican amendments during the Senate debate of the employment benefits extension bill. Republicans wanted to offer a number of amendments that were focused specifically on job creation. After all, the only reason we are considering extending unemployment benefits for the 13th time since 2008 is because so many Americans still don't have jobs. While unemployment benefits can provide limited short-term help, they do nothing to get unemployed Americans what they really want--steady, good-paying jobs with an opportunity for advancement.

Republicans thought that we should accompany yet another extension of emergency unemployment benefits with measures to make it easier and cheaper to create jobs for the millions of Americans currently searching for work. We proposed amendments to create jobs with measures such as reining in burdensome regulatory requirements and improving job training for people who are unemployed. Democrats, however, didn't want to take any votes on Republican proposals, so they simply refused to allow amendments to be considered. That is not the mark of a party that is serious about helping the unemployed.

If Democrats were really serious, they would be focused on permanent relief through jobs rather than merely treating the symptoms of unemployment. Democrats brought up unemployment benefits not because they offer real, long-term help to the unemployed but because they think these benefits might win them a few votes in November.

They are planning to keep on doing the same thing. Soon Democrats plan to bring up a 40-percent minimum wage hike that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost up to 500,000 jobs by the end of 2016. By the way, 57 percent of those job losses--according to the CBO--would be held by women. But that is not stopping the Democrats who hope that a minimum wage hike will gain them votes at the polls even if it hurts workers in the process.

This week Senator Reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to a similarly political bill, the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act. All Senate Republicans believe in equal pay for equal work. Paycheck fairness has been the law of the land since 1963. Democrats are playing politics with equal pay and attempting to distract from the real harm that their policies have done to women. Right now there are 3.7 million more women living in poverty than there were when the President took office. Since the President took office,

the poverty rate for women has increased from 14.4 percent to 16.3 percent. Income for female college graduates has dropped by over $1,400, and the median income for women is down by $733 since the President took office.

It would be nice if this legislation that is being proposed by the Democratic majority provided women with real economic help, but it is far more likely to line the pockets of trial lawyers. In fact, this election-year ploy would actually hurt women by increasing Federal regulations that would cut flexibility in the workforce for working moms and end merit pay to reward quality work.

If Democrats were really serious about helping women, they would work with us on bills to create jobs and to expand workplace opportunities for women as well as for men--bills such as Senator Rubio's legislation to amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow employers to give merit-based pay increases to good workers; or Senator Collins' bill to repeal ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek rule, which is reducing hours and lowering wages for many workers, particularly women, who make up 63 percent of those affected; or the bill proposed by Senator Mike Lee, which would help employers balance work and family life by allowing private sector employers to give workers the choice of monetary compensation or comp time for the overtime hours that they work; or Senator McConnell and Senator Ayotte's bill, which would give hourly workers access to flexible work arrangements like comp time off and flexible credit hours; or my bill combining several of my colleagues' proposals to stimulate job creation and increase hours and wages through energy development, job training, and regulatory relief. Then, of course, there is Senator Fischer's proposal to give women the tools and knowledge they need to fight discrimination at work.

Many of these proposals have passed the House of Representatives and are awaiting action by the Senate. These bills would create new jobs, open new opportunities, and help reverse the economic decline that women have experienced over the past 5 years. But Democrats don't seem to be interested in providing economic relief to women. They are interested in elections and scoring political points.

Democrats can go on campaigning for the rest of the year if they want. They can twist the legislative process for their own political ends and ignore the economic pain they have caused women and men. Meanwhile, the middle class in this country continues to fall further and further behind.

Republicans in the Senate will continue to propose legislation to create jobs and opportunities for Americans and help make up the ground that the American people have lost in the Obama economy. Democrats can still change their minds and join us, and I hope they will because the situation has not gotten any better. We still have chronic high unemployment, lower take-home pay, and lower household income.

We have almost 4 million people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months. The labor participation rate--the number of people who are actually in the labor workforce today--is at the lowest level we have seen in 35 years, meaning there are millions of Americans who left the workforce. Those statistics are crying out for solutions that will do something about the need for jobs in our economy, that will do something about growing and expanding our economy, so those people who are unemployed can find the work they need to improve their standard of living and that of their families as well.

So I hope all of these issues I have mentioned--these are all amendments that have been filed by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. So far there is no indication, no suggestion that any of these amendments are going to get an opportunity to be offered, to be debated, and to be voted on--amendments that actually would improve the outlook for not only men in this country but women as well, by growing the economy, expanding the economy, creating the types of good-paying jobs that will create opportunities for advancement for hard-working Americans.

If the Senate is going to continue to be a place where debate and amendments are shut down, blocked by the other side simply so they can have show votes designed to appeal to a political audience as we head into the midterm elections; if we aren't going to be doing anything to solve the real-world problems millions of Americans who are unemployed have, or millions of Americans who have been hurt by this economy, and millions of Americans who have seen their standard of living and their quality of life eroded by bad policies coming out of Washington, DC, that make it more difficult and more expensive to create jobs--that is what we ought to be focused on. Republicans come to the floor, as we did last week when we were debating unemployment insurance, with amendments designed specifically at growing the economy and creating jobs. At every turn we have been blocked from offering those amendments and, in turn, we are talking about nothing more than political rhetoric in an election year that does nothing to address the real problems of the American people. They deserve better. We can do better. I hope we will. I hope the Democrats will change their minds and join us and allow us to have that debate, to have those votes, and allow us to do something meaningful for middle-class families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I would like to put forward as well. I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 2199, that all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to consideration of the bill, and that it be in order for me to offer amendment No. 2964, and then for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment, and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion with the following amendments on the Republican side in order: McConnell amendment No. 2962, Fischer amendment No. 2963, Alexander amendment No. 2965, and Lee amendment No. 2966.

The McConnell amendment has to deal with flexibility in the workplace and comp time, the Fischer amendment has to do with antidiscrimination in the workplace, and I believe the Lee amendment also deals with comp time flexibility in the workplace.

The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, is here, and I think he can speak to his amendment. Most of them deal with the pending business, S. 2199, which is the Pay Equity Act that the majority leader expects to get a cloture vote on later. We simply ask to have an opportunity to offer amendments that pertain to that bill, on issues we think are important in addressing the issue that is before us.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I think what we just heard was a number of our Members have amendments they are going to talk about and offer when we get on the bill--and I assume we will at some point--so we can debate and vote on them. We are talking about an issue that is important to people across this country, and we have amendments that we think would improve, strengthen, make better the bill that is going to be on the floor that has been described as the Pay Equity Act by the Democrats.

We actually think there is a better way to do this. We think there is a way that actually would improve the wages, provide better job opportunities, and better opportunities for advancement for women.

This morning the majority leader quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, ``America is another name for opportunity.'' I could not agree more with that statement. The American dream is to work hard and achieve upward mobility. Americans want good jobs, and they want to earn a fair wage. But the current Obama economy is doing everything it can to hurt the American dream.

The economy is stagnant. There are 10 million Americans who are unemployed--nearly 4 million for 6 months or longer. Household income has fallen. Right now there are 3.7 million more women living in poverty than there were when the President took office. I will repeat that. There are 3.7 million more women living in poverty today than there were when the President took office. The median income for women has dropped by $733 since President Obama took office. That is why this body should be focused on enacting policies that lift the government- imposed burdens that impede job opportunities and economic growth.

I have offered an amendment--and I just asked unanimous consent to be able to have it debated and voted on when we get on this bill--that actually is focused on enacting policies that lift the government- imposed burdens that impede job opportunities and economic growth. It is called the Good Jobs, Good Wages, and Good Hours Act. It would help return America to a place where there are good job opportunities.

My amendment would help create good-paying jobs by reining in burdensome regulatory requirements, shielding workers from the damaging effects of ObamaCare, approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, and providing permanent tax relief to employers that are looking to expand and hire.

Republicans could not agree more that women should have equal opportunities and pay in the workplace. Unfortunately, the legislation our friends on the other side are pushing will not accomplish that goal. Their legislation would increase Federal regulations that would cut flexibility in the workplace for working moms and end merit pay that rewards quality work.

The Democrats seem to be trying to change the subject of how their ideas are actually hurting women in the workforce. Of those affected by the Democrats' ObamaCare 30-hour workweek that is reducing wages, 63 percent are women. So that policy of going to a 30-hour workweek that was defined as such in ObamaCare, 63 percent of the impact of that is being felt by women. Of the roughly 500,000 jobs that CBO projects will be lost by the end of 2016 thanks to the Democrats' 40-percent minimum wage hike, 235,000 of those--or 57 percent--would be jobs that are held by women. Disproportionately, these policies are going to hurt women.

The poverty rate for women has increased to 16.3 percent from 14.4 percent as of when the President took office. So the poverty rate is higher. We have women who are living in worse economic conditions than when the President took office. If the Democrats were truly serious about fixing that problem--if they are truly serious about helping women--they would work with us on bills to create jobs and to expand workplace opportunities for women and for men as well. That is exactly what my amendment does. It addresses the problems created by ObamaCare, it includes a provision pushed by Senator Collins that would restore the 40-hour workweek I mentioned earlier, and it will finally repeal the job-destroying medical device tax for which Senators Toomey, Hatch, and Coats have been tirelessly fighting.

My amendment ensures that veterans and the long-term unemployed are not punished by the costs of the ObamaCare employer mandate in that legislation. Senator Blunt has raised that issue in the Senate on behalf of veterans, and in the House a similar bill passed by a margin of 406 to 1.

My amendment also provides permanent, targeted tax relief to millions of small businesses. Small businesses create 65 percent of all new jobs. Yet this administration has done little more than punish them with more regulations and higher taxes.

The amendment also halts harmful EPA regulations until the EPA conducts additional analysis of the impact those existing rules would have on jobs.

It is time this body recognizes that the policies the other side is advancing are not achieving the outcomes they claim will occur. We need to renew our commitment to helping all Americans, including women, find job opportunities that allow them to achieve the American dream. We need to return this country to a place where America truly is another name for opportunity.

Earlier today the President and CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Karen Kerrigan, wrote an article that says this proposal I am speaking about ``offers a set of really good policy proposals to help women entrepreneurs and women in the workforce.''

That is why I sought unanimous consent to have this amendment debated and voted on, along with many of my colleagues, including the Senator from Nebraska Mrs. Fischer and the Senator from New Hampshire Ms. Ayotte, who are here to speak about amendments they want to put forward as a part of this debate. I asked unanimous consent earlier for those amendments to be considered as well and once again that has been blocked by the majority leader. That is the wrong way to deal with an issue of this consequence.

If we want to help people--if we want to create jobs and grow the economy, which ultimately helps lift all the boats, improves the standard of living for middle-class families, women and men--the best way to do that is to get a growing, vibrant economy instead of a stagnant economy, which is what we have today, with too many who have been unemployed for a long period of time.

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come to the conclusion that if we are going to debate this issue, we need to debate it in a comprehensive way that takes into consideration all of the ideas out there, including those that will be offered by my colleagues this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Utah has an amendment he is going to speak to in a moment. I just want to say one thing. I appreciate the observation made by the Senator from New Hampshire Ms. Ayotte with regard to this going through a regular order process. If this were a serious discussion, there would have been an opportunity to have a debate at the appropriate committee, the HELP Committee.

You just heard great presentations by the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from New Hampshire on amendments that they would like to have considered and debated and voted on--substantive amendments that address what is at the heart of this issue. I think we all understand what this is about. I mentioned this morning on the floor the New York Times story from a couple weeks ago about what the intention is with regard to these issues. Again, this is from the New York Times story, and I quote: ``to be timed to coincide with campaign-style trips by President Obama.'' ``Democrats concede,'' the Times reports, ``that making new laws is not really the point. Rather, they are trying to force Republicans to vote against them.'' The article goes on to say-- and I quote again:

Privately, White House officials say they have no intention

of searching for any grand bargain with Republicans on any of

these issues. ``The point isn't to compromise''. . . .

That is reporting from the New York Times, and quoting a White House official with regard to this.

This is clearly designed as a political ploy, as my colleagues from New Hampshire and Nebraska pointed out. If we were serious about this, there would be an open process where we could consider amendments-- amendments that improve and strengthen the legislation that is before us--and actually it would be a better approach to addressing the issue that is before us; that is, to try to create better salaries, better wages, better opportunities for women. I say that as somebody who is the father of two adult daughters who are both in the workplace. I want to see them have every opportunity to advance themselves and to maximize the potential they have. But we cannot do that if we have policies coming out of Washington, DC, that make it more difficult, more expensive to create jobs, that throw a big wet blanket on our economy, and stifle the growth we need to create those types of opportunities for all Americans.

The Senator from Utah is here. He is going to speak to his amendment. But I think it is very clear what this is about; that is, simply trying to score a political point rather than have a serious, meaningful, substantive debate about solving an issue.

I yield the floor.